Proofed by Robin Koerner
U.S. Terrorism Against Syria
American President George Bush insists on ending his mandate as it began: with his natural disposition for creating world disasters and catastrophes. U.S. aircraft savagely raided the Syrian border region (Albulkamal) with Iraq under the pretext of preventing contractors from sending terrorists to Iraq.
An amateur film, which was broadcast on Syrian television, revealed that there were eight deaths and four injuries. Not only were they civilian farmers, but four of the exterminated were children.
The arrogance of the U.S. administration, who ordered the attack, allows it also to carry out raids on a nearly daily basis in the residential Pakistani border areas with Afghanistan with the same trite excuse (fighting terrorism and tracking terrorists). Hundreds of innocent Pakistanis have fallen and been injured as a result of this - and at a time when fearless Washington is reaching out to the Taliban (in other words, Al Qaeda) in order to establish talks with it!
The U.S. air raids on the two countries are evidence of political faltering, not of strength. They are one of the features of complete failure on the road to defeat in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps it is the final chapter of the dance of death that the staff of the U.S. administration set out on. The staff are leaving the White House at a time when U.S. opinion polls indicate the great possibility of a Democratic Party victory in the presidential elections to be held at the beginning of November this year. The party's candidate for the White House is Barack Obama.
The current Republican administration is collecting the tails of all its failed policies, practiced at the international level from President Bush's inauguration until this moment, in a last-minute attempt to use what could be considered (from its point of view) to be a security force. But it is quick to repeat the reckless steps that are a reflection of the self-importance and arrogance that will end its mandate in a financial crisis - which is a result of the reckless and senseless global economic policies practiced over the past eight years.
Some U.S. political experts say the recent raid on Syria represents a strategic shift in Iraq. Such talk is inaccurate. The raid on Syria is in the end an attack, just as the occupation in Iraq is an attack. An attack that prevented and is still preventing Washington from transferring its hostility to other Arab countries and new regions. Considering U.S. failure in both Iraq and Afghanistan, opening a new front within the military would be illogical. It would be the third course. Especially since President Bush and his staff are about to leave the White House, it is unlikely that this is a strategic shift. Under such a new approach, it would become necessary to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, opening a military front with Tehran, whom the U.S. accuses of sabotaging the situation in Iraq and training terrorists, and with Syria. The U.S. has no power to take on these tasks at this stage.
Strangely enough: the U.S. has accused Syria of not controlling its border with Iraq, while it does not control its own border with Mexico, evidenced by the daily infiltration of hundreds across the border without obtaining a visa. This begs the question: Why don't U.S. occupying forces in Iraq control the border with Syria? Why is Syria alone responsible for controlling the borders between the two countries?
As evidence for the arrogance that fills the minds of the staff of the White House Administration, Washington has refused to make any changes in the security agreement with Iraq. Whatever these changes were. Despite the position of the Iraqi government which approved minor adjustments, Washington insists on having a permanent military base in Iraq. The agreement provides the legal basis for the U.S. presence in the Arab country. And This reveals the truth about the U.S. strategic vision.
The U.S. air raid on Syria is bullying in every sense of the word. And as the Syrian foreign minister Walid Moallem described it, it is an act of terrorism by which Washington wants to dump the consequences of its failure in Iraq on a third party.
An amateur film, which was broadcast on Syrian television, revealed that there were eight deaths and four injuries. Not only were they civilian farmers, but four of the exterminated were children.
The arrogance of the U.S. administration, who ordered the attack, allows it also to carry out raids on a nearly daily basis in the residential Pakistani border areas with Afghanistan with the same trite excuse (fighting terrorism and tracking terrorists). Hundreds of innocent Pakistanis have fallen and been injured as a result of this - and at a time when fearless Washington is reaching out to the Taliban (in other words, Al Qaeda) in order to establish talks with it!
The U.S. air raids on the two countries are evidence of political faltering, not of strength. They are one of the features of complete failure on the road to defeat in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps it is the final chapter of the dance of death that the staff of the U.S. administration set out on. The staff are leaving the White House at a time when U.S. opinion polls indicate the great possibility of a Democratic Party victory in the presidential elections to be held at the beginning of November this year. The party's candidate for the White House is Barack Obama.
The current Republican administration is collecting the tails of all its failed policies, practiced at the international level from President Bush's inauguration until this moment, in a last-minute attempt to use what could be considered (from its point of view) to be a security force. But it is quick to repeat the reckless steps that are a reflection of the self-importance and arrogance that will end its mandate in a financial crisis - which is a result of the reckless and senseless global economic policies practiced over the past eight years.
Some U.S. political experts say the recent raid on Syria represents a strategic shift in Iraq. Such talk is inaccurate. The raid on Syria is in the end an attack, just as the occupation in Iraq is an attack. An attack that prevented and is still preventing Washington from transferring its hostility to other Arab countries and new regions. Considering U.S. failure in both Iraq and Afghanistan, opening a new front within the military would be illogical. It would be the third course. Especially since President Bush and his staff are about to leave the White House, it is unlikely that this is a strategic shift. Under such a new approach, it would become necessary to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, opening a military front with Tehran, whom the U.S. accuses of sabotaging the situation in Iraq and training terrorists, and with Syria. The U.S. has no power to take on these tasks at this stage.
Strangely enough: the U.S. has accused Syria of not controlling its border with Iraq, while it does not control its own border with Mexico, evidenced by the daily infiltration of hundreds across the border without obtaining a visa. This begs the question: Why don't U.S. occupying forces in Iraq control the border with Syria? Why is Syria alone responsible for controlling the borders between the two countries?
As evidence for the arrogance that fills the minds of the staff of the White House Administration, Washington has refused to make any changes in the security agreement with Iraq. Whatever these changes were. Despite the position of the Iraqi government which approved minor adjustments, Washington insists on having a permanent military base in Iraq. The agreement provides the legal basis for the U.S. presence in the Arab country. And This reveals the truth about the U.S. strategic vision.
The U.S. air raid on Syria is bullying in every sense of the word. And as the Syrian foreign minister Walid Moallem described it, it is an act of terrorism by which Washington wants to dump the consequences of its failure in Iraq on a third party.
Previous article![]( "A Very American Company")
